Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130121
STATION
CSPAN2 4
CSPAN 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 10
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
. our current obsession with slashing the deficit and avoiding that well-known and worn fiscal cliff is killing us, krugman writes, getting in the way of what really needs to be done, which is dedicating government to creating jobs and getting us back to full employment. he blames not only congress but the white house. paul krugman is professor of economics and international affairs at princeton university. since 1999, he's been an op-ed columnist at "the new york times" and now also writes a blog for the paper titled "the conscience of a liberal." according to the search engine technorati, it's the most popular blog by an individual on the internet. author or editor of some 20 books and more than 200 professional papers, krugman is a thinker so esteemed and widely known in his field he's become an icon. not only has he won the nobel prize in economics, he's also the subject of this song by the balladeer loudon wainwright iii -- ♪ i read the new york times that's where i get my news ♪ ♪ paul krugman's on the op-ed page that's where i get ♪ ♪ the blues 'cause paul always tel
the narrow lens of deficit reduction so the larger goal of economic growth and maintaining the health and economic security of all americans. now, there's no question that reducing the federal deficit is a worthwhile goal. nobody's going to argue with that. we need to address our nation's long term physical problem. we understand that. they affect all of us. most importantly our children and our grandchildren. their future would not be bright if they are drowning in red ink of budget deficits and soaring national debt. we understand that too. however, their futures will not be very bright if they can't afford health care or if they can't afford a quality education or if they don't have the opportunity to attain long term financial security. leaving them with less economic security by weakening social security and medicare would be just as bad, and for many people, it would be worse, and if we weaken social security and medicare to the point of their parents and grandparents to no longer live with dignity and purpose, we will be risking their futures as well. as a nation, we have to br
in that regard, and they haven't experience environmental problems. and with new york's budget deficit, it seems obvious that hydrofracking is the way to go. and, of course, governor cuomo is free to set whatever regulations he wants about that to ensure the safety of quality and other things that residents are concerned about. i would say that the project should proceed. it's brought benefit to other states. there's no reason that new york should be left behind. >> okay. right in front. wait for the mic a fun. >> you get very good examples of unsuccessful creations of new green jobs. had also looked at elimination of existing jobs like really good cost-benefit analysis done for regulations? >> the cost-benefit analysis for mercury was a travesty. if you look at the cost-benefit analysis carefully, all the benefits from reducing mercury came from getting rid of particulates and particulates were not the focus of that particular regulation. and what was interesting is the benefits focus on additional days of school. in other words, a few days of schools miss, two days of work missed because of lo
't create new deficit spending. so not raising the debt ceiling is sort of like a family that's trying to improve its credit rating. families that say, i know how we can save money, we won't pay her credit card bills. it was the sole solution to the debt ceiling in august of 2011 in the u.s. downgraded last time. so all these issues are important and it's very important that congress take necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a situation where government doesn't pay its bills. >> a number of people have expressed concern about how much of the challenges actually were addressed in a deal, it certainly went part way, but leaves a number of issues still on the table. would you care to raise that as an additional fiscal cliff that is facing us? would you think that it's not as concerning as it was when you raise that term initially? >> as i said the fiscal cliff, if it is allowed to take place, it probably would have traded a recession this year. a good bit of that has been addressed. nevertheless, we still have fairly restrictive fiscal policies now. it is estimated that fed
deficit hawk. the republican senate committee budget guru, and he is offsetting most of the first slice. the bill's actually two pieces, 17 billion and 34 billion. and he's offsetting the 17 billion portion with a across-the-board cut. so it'll be interesting to see if that passes or not. you know, all democrats will vote against it, and i suspect that it will fail. but it'll be interesting to see. for him it's important because they want to establish the principle that emergency spending needs to be offset with spending cuts. which is something that democrats are very afraid of, because they feel like every time there's a disaster, republicans use it as an excuse to go after domestic programs, social services and so forth. so that'll be an important precedent, and then we'll see what happens in the senate. you know, we'll probably see a house/senate conference on the bill or some ping-ponging between the chambers and probably delaying final enactment. >> host: yeah. and the washington times reporting this morning that the conservative group for growth is threatening to punish members w
the debt and deficit and don't worry about it, it will work itself down the line and don't worry about the mounting debt and deficit. >> that's then and this is now. a debt as you pointed out 16.4 trillion dollars and rising constantly. we need a restraint on that debt. we cannot let it run away constantly. the and the debt ceiling is a restraint. what the democrats want is a blank check. i'm not sure it's constitutional because congress rules on the issue of money, not the executive branch. so, i'm not sure the constitutionality of it. if you did abolish this debt ceiling, you would pretty soon get yourself a downgrade. these rating agencies would say, your debt is just running away. you're not credit worthy. >> megyn: the debt ceiling is in place, it doesn't seem they trust our lawmakers to live within their moneys and with the money. when you look at 16.4 trillion, they're right, we're not living in our means. and there's a question, stu, you see that number, i think of my kids and think of my children. who is going to pay that number? it's probably not going to be me. >> right. >>
marijuana will reduce the deficit, increase revenue, increase jobs. decrease crime in half. host: so what do you think about the strategy from house republicans? what do you think specifically on this as a strategy? caller: i think it's just a big joke. without new revenue. they know. they don't care that we're going down the tubes. they don't care about sese quest ration. now they are talking about the construction industry is going crazy. we need more cheap labor from third world countries. like that's going to help. host: ela is on our democrats line from charlotte, south carolina. you're on. what do you think about this proposal? caller: i think it's crazy. because the president is not going to go for it. he has already said that he wants a clean debt ceiling bill. not three months that we have to go through the same thing again. he wants it for a whole year. so i don't understand why the republicans are doing this. they know they are not going to get it. they are not going to get this, so this is wasting precious time. they should do the debt ceiling for a whole year. host: so ella, hol
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)